Weird how these progressive candidates keep having very high approval ratings while the moderates/secret Republicans get much lower approvals. Maybe we need to pick more of the progressive candidates.
post
Seems a little premature until he is sworn in and delivers on his promises
Had he even entered office yet?
Not til the ball drops
What to pre-pubescent testicles have to do with this?
NYC has the ball drop at new year.
I was clearly making a joke.
So like, do New Yorkers hold their balls until new years? Dont they get tired?
Helps when you don't have billionaire-funded FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) blasted at you every day.
Wonder how the Democratic party will ratfuck this guy.
Oddly enough I've seen the purported progressives on here already trying to claim he's bad on a few occasions.
Hate to break it to you, but people can lie about what they believe and who they are...
Especially on the internet.
Yeah, and the legitimate lefties out there are awesome and I hope they get their way.
Then there are the ones who preach disengagement because "both sides" / "blue-maga"...
I mean, shits been fucked up largely due to neoliberals controlling the DNC...
That changed with the last chair electuon, and some people are genuinely ignorant of that fact. Others want people on the actual left to be disengaged for the next primary.
The DNC is neo-liberal, period. They are center right everywhere in the world.
You don't understand that the chair has complete control...
Otherwise when Obama was elected youd have been saying "the president" and holding Obama accountable for everything GW did before Obama even ran for president.
At least, I'm hoping the problem here is ignorance, like I said a lot of people are lying to depress Dem turnout in the next presidential primary.
I do understand that the DNC has complete control. We've seen many example of that, the most egregious being Bernie vs Clinton.
US society is fundamentally to the right and the DNC will keep it that way.
That creates an issue where changing the Democrat Party will take a long long time. So the better option would be a real left party, but that would mean that Republicans would be in power for a while, until the politcal landscape changes and stabilise with 3 parties. And that's not accounting for the DNC that will work against the newly formed party.
Denying that the DNC is neo-liberal to its core is deliberate ignorance.
Any prominent member that has an ounce of progressism has to fight the DNC at every corner to get through, like we've seen Mamdani.
Meanwhile, progressives should definitely vote for the Democrats. But this is a different issue. The vote turnout is terrible in North America (we have the same problem in Canada).
I've never seen anyone here (or anywhere on the Fediverse) actually preach disengagement. Pointing out that both sides suck isn't preaching disengagement.
Eh, tomato/potato, the 'genocide joe' mantra and then immediately turning that hate on Harris when he stepped down, essentially demanding an ethically pure option...
It all ends up in the same place, a disenfranchised apathetic public leaving the door open for the current shitshow whose voters eagerly embrace the terrible options they're offered. Perfect being the enemy of the less bad and all that.
Yeah that's not "potato potato" that's called fucking lying. Criticizing the options offered and preaching disengagement are two completely different things. It's completely possible to denounce genocide Joe and "nothing comes to mind" Harris and call not for less, but for more (and more radical) engagement. No way in hell, say, Uncommitted was "preaching disengagement," and if you feel the need to lie about people for opposing genocide you should seriously reconsider your beliefs.
There is absolutely room for criticism against Zohran. I wholeheartedly support that voting for him was still the correct choice and I hope he really does unleash significant progressive policy for NYC. I also believe he deserves the criticism for manufacturing consent for action against Venezuela and Cuba by calling their presidents dictators in the context of today's likelihood of attack against the former; and for his redundancy on pinning the Isntreali genocide of Palestinians on October 7th.
they are dictators. most of the world sees them as dictators.
whether or not that justifies military action is another question, but they are certainly not freely elected representatives, anymore than Putin is. And the countries that do recognize the legitimacy of their elections... are also dictatorships.
not freely elected
They definitely aren't freely elected. You can't have free elections when the US government is interfering in them by sanctions.
As stated in the memorandum on the sanctions in the office of the historian governmental website:
The majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent) [...] The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. [...] every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.
Yes, because people are either good or bad, and thus everything they do is either good or bad. Depending of course on whether they are good or bad only.
i most see then angry he's not a far left communist and only a 'mere' social democrat.
Wait until he starts making policy. Then see if you’re still thrilled. We’v been disappointed in the past.
I'd rather have him fail on half of his policies than Cuomo implement all of his.
The optimist in me wants you to shut up but the realist in me knows that will be the true test.
some things are more do-able than others. Free buses is easy. bringing down rents, not so much.
"making policy". Yes, the mayor. Who makes the laws. That mayor making policies.
The mayor of New York City makes policies that affect more people than the governors of all but the twelve largest states. More than the smallest ten combined. His policies affect almost as many people as live in the rest of New York State.
Mamdani is about to become a massively powerful figure in American politics.
Do you think that all a mayor does is send press releases and give the key to the city to the Powerpuff girls? In NYC especially, local government controls a lot
What a mayor does varies rather a lot between cities.
You're not wrong (in my city, the "mayor" is basically another city council member with no extra powers, just the same voting power as the other council members), but I don't quite get what you're disagreeing with me on.
But in NYC: Mayor of New York City - Wikipedia https://share.google/X5YRgBrWjdwhEK7o1
What does NYC's mayor control? A look at which powers the office does, and does not, hold. - CBS New York https://share.google/RCzPsITmolAMyzPPy
While I support him and agree his popularity is up, beware of the numbers in this article.
It switches between NY City polls and NY State polls.
The poll also found support for some of Mamdani’s proposals—65 percent of New York State voters support offering universal, free child care for families with young children, and 50 percent of city voters support eliminating fares on New York City buses.
Good. The man deserves it.
all 66 comments